Why shoot film

LAG · Nov 21, 2016

The biggest the digital sensor/camera are, the fewer photographs can take, that's curious, isn't it? (without being permanently connected to a hard disk laptop, or course)

fstop said:
A few years? say hello to my little friend. The Hasselblad H5D-200c muhahahhaahaha

Hello? when a medium format digital camera available on the market and its sensor reaches larger ratios - available on film long time ago - like 6x7, 6x9, 6x10, 6x12 (without forgetting 6x17 or 6x24) ... in size & quality, give us a call, please! (Oh! and do not forget to mention what kind of computer (and free hard disk space) we will need for each photograph by then)

But, Photography is not about the cameras, lenses, nor the capacity or abilities of the sensitive material! Some of you have said above that Film Photography is fun, well, I could agree, I have no doubt about it, but if one day, in that Photographic Digital future my daughter asks me "Dad, Why do you insist on continuing with Film? "Fun" certainly wouldn't be my answer, perhaps "My darling, there is no greater teacher to see the light in the dark!"

Agulliver · Nov 21, 2016

Film photography certainly is about fun.

I had a blast taking an old, lo-fi Halina 35x to a gig last week. Shot a couple of rolls end ended up with about 20 pretty good photos which have been praised by the acts I went to see (hear).

Plus the looks I got standing in front of the stage surrounded by people with pocket digital cameras and phones...with my completely manual silver film camera, manually winding on each frame....priceless...

blockend · Nov 21, 2016

Unless your photography is forensic, surveillance, medical or something similar, it will have no practical purpose. So for almost everyone on this forum, and nearly every photography forum on the internet, we're talking about essentially useless, pleasure-based image making. To hear photography discussed on the 'net, you would imagine the number of megapixels or image sharpness is a life or death debate. It isn't.

So we're talking about eliciting an emotional response from a still photographic image. There are no limits to the range of photographic media that can achieve that goal, from pinhole shoebox cameras to large format monorail, via point and shoots and smartphones to old folding cameras. The aims, and the responses, are entirely subjective. Some of the most evocative photographs are family pictures, 2" square, dog-eared and stained, taken on cameras that were never much good in their day, but producing images that speak through the decades directly to the emotions. Photography uses objectivity as a starting point, and emotion is the only measure of its output.

Black Dog · Nov 21, 2016

Agulliver said:
Film photography certainly is about fun.

I had a blast taking an old, lo-fi Halina 35x to a gig last week. Shot a couple of rolls end ended up with about 20 pretty good photos which have been praised by the acts I went to see (hear).

Plus the looks I got standing in front of the stage surrounded by people with pocket digital cameras and phones...with my completely manual silver film camera, manually winding on each frame....priceless...

I love that too!-I had a similar experience last week photographing in the Lakes at Castlerigg stone circle.

ciniframe · Nov 21, 2016

Waiting for someone to say;

FILM! Why you lazy so in so's, unless you are coating you own plates your not doing 'Real Photography'.

Disclaimer; No, I've never coated my own plates. The most hands on I have to do is slit 35mm down to 9.2mm for my Minox.

kobaltus · Nov 21, 2016

Only film can capture my long beard, wooden glasses and my vintage clothes.

Darko Pozar · Nov 21, 2016

LAG said:
The biggest the digital sensor/camera are, the fewer photographs can take, that's curious, isn't it? (without being permanently connected to a hard disk laptop, or course)

Hello? when a medium format digital camera available on the market and its sensor reaches larger ratios - available on film long time ago - like 6x7, 6x9, 6x10, 6x12 (without forgetting 6x17 or 6x24) ... in size & quality, give us a call, please! (Oh! and do not forget to mention what kind of computer (and free hard disk space) we will need for each photograph by then)

But, Photography is not about the cameras, lenses, nor the capacity or abilities of the sensitive material! Some of you have said above that Film Photography is fun, well, I could agree, I have no doubt about it, but if one day, in that Photographic Digital future my daughter asks me "Dad, Why do you insist on continuing with Film? "Fun" certainly wouldn't be my answer, perhaps "My darling, there is no greater teacher to see the light in the dark!"

Consider a Seitz Panorama Camera with it's 6x17 sensor...

Dead Link Removed

flavio81 · Nov 21, 2016

Great replies in this thread, in particular Halford's:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I'll try to be brief:

Image quality is not measured just by resolution alone.

"Megapixels" is not a measure of resolution nor a guarantee of more image detail.

Taking pictures is something that goes beyond image quality or convenience.

Taking pictures is something that is performed and thus the tools (camera, film, lenses) will influence to some degree on the person who is taking the picture. So in real life, choosing a different tool sometimes will lead to a different result. This, not only on just image quality or "look", but also in your relationship with the subject or the environment, and/or in the choices you will make that ultimately will lead to a picture.

I think digital photography is great and the image quality of modern full frame DSLRs is great. However, i prefer using film cameras; they give me a substantially different experience as a whole -- differering in how you approach your subject, how often do you press the button, where do you go, how do you frame, how much do you involve with the task, what do you do with the finished picture, how do you preserve the image, etc.

NJH · Nov 21, 2016

FujiLove said:
Another recommendation for good value film in the UK is 7DayShop (https://www.7dayshop.com/)

They have some great prices, especially on 120 film, and offer bulk discounts and free delivery.

Its the goto place for TriX 120 5 roll pro packs. I can't find anyone selling direct in the UK to get anywhere near 20 notes for a pack of TriX.

fstop · Nov 21, 2016

Bill Burk said:
You know it's not the camera that makes a great photograph.

It's the tripod.

Lately I've been thinking in terms of the photographer, compared to a musician. While I am very happy to listen to Brian Eno on synthesizer (because that's his chosen instrument)... I am also happy to hear Stéphane Grappelli on violin... I wouldn't want to hear him on synth.

So it's the photographer's choice of medium, whatever makes that person happy, is what they should use. I'm happy to see work by a spirited and passionate worker in any medium.

but a synthesizer can sound like a violin....

removed account4 · Nov 21, 2016

fstop said:
but a synthesizer can sound like a violin....

and some folks like gene laughter can make photographs look like paintings

Thomas Bertilsson · Nov 21, 2016

jnanian said:
and some folks like gene laughter can make photographs look like paintings

Thank you for mentioning Gene. I love his bromoil prints and wish I could have acquired one over the years.

DREW WILEY · Nov 21, 2016

Megapixels are the first thing that dies off whenever an asteroid collides with the earth. Then the megageeks go next. It's the little underground critters that survive and evolve.

tomfrh · Nov 21, 2016

Bolex said:
is digital now as good as film quality ???and secondly why does film endure and where would you recommend the cheapest and best place to buy and process it today thanks

In terms of raw detail consumer digital has surpassed 35mm film and is matching medium format. A fine grained 35mm negative/transparancy is equivalent to somewhere between 10 and 20 megapixels.

Film endures because it's fun!

DREW WILEY · Nov 21, 2016

Dream on. Yeah, film is fun; but show me any 35mm digital print on the planet that can compete with a COMPETENTLY printed 6x7 or 6x9 image from
modern high-resolution film. And once you're into large format film, it's Godzilla versus Bambi. Sure, there are big digital cameras too - but astronomical observatories aren't particularly portable, unless you have the budget for another Hubble telescope. Do what you enjoy. That's what counts. But leave the nonsense math to the geeks. I judge with my eyes.

Marcelo Paniagua · Nov 21, 2016

Probably just the same reason as why going with a painting over a photography (either digital or film).

Painting is slow, beated to a pulp on the techincal are by any kind photography and needs a particular set of skills to produce some good result. Its hards as hell to get good results and can be a pain if you dont have a huge amount of patience.

But, by those same reason, its fun.

Film is the same. Prone to errors, slow and probably beated to a pulp by high end digital cameras. But in the end, your film photography reflects or have your signature.

I love my Canon 6d and it sure is a pleasure to use. But I get a different kind of accoplishment feeling with film, because there is no chip or computer aiding me, its just me, my camera (most of the time a manual full mechanical one) and the film. Its either I get the shot right or I screw up. I'm not saying one is better than the other, they are just different. You find different kind of pleasure on both of them.

Just my 2 cents.

Regards.

tomfrh · Nov 21, 2016

DREW WILEY said:
Dream on. Yeah, film is fun; but show me any 35mm digital print on the planet that can compete with a COMPETENTLY printed 6x7 or 6x9 image from

I agree the best 6x9s will beat the best 35mm digital, however I think you're being a little unfair to say 35mm digital can't compete with competent medium format print.

These guys did great comparison:
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/

35mm digital is good for up to say 40mp, whereas the mamiya 7 tmax and provia was giving 50-80 megapixels. mamiya 7 is a big neg, and very sharp, and they're fine grained film. For more run of the mill medium format, e.g. my pentax 645, or grainy 6x9 film, the 35mm digital is competing. 35mm digital beats some but not all medium format, so it's not unreasonable to say it's close to medium format.

DREW WILEY said:
And once you're into large format film, it's Godzilla versus Bambi. Sure, there are big digital cameras too

The IQ180 vs 4x5 in link above are much of a muchness. I don't think it's fair to compare large format film to small format digital...

Gerald C Koch · Nov 21, 2016

blockend said:
So we're talking about eliciting an emotional response from a still photographic image. There are no limits to the range of photographic media that can achieve that goal, from pinhole shoebox cameras to large format monorail, via point and shoots and smartphones to old folding cameras. The aims, and the responses, are entirely subjective. Some of the most evocative photographs are family pictures, 2" square, dog-eared and stained, taken on cameras that were never much good in their day, but producing images that speak through the decades directly to the emotions. Photography uses objectivity as a starting point, and emotion is the only measure of its output.

Indeed Old photographs are of great value to sociologists. Curiously in our digital age such records are not permanent. Of what value are your wedding photos or video if they can no longer be played. This is becoming to be of great concern.

DREW WILEY · Nov 21, 2016

It's got nuthin to do with comparing megapixels to megapixels. The term itself doesn't even apply to one of the relevant categories. I've seen enough
side by side BIG prints taken with MF pro digital and MF film to know even that is a close horse race - and I'm talking work made by people with huge
budgets and equivalent skill levels. But I don't shoot 35mm for that reason. When I pick up one of them lil' critters, like during my walk in the rain
yesterday, I'm after not only spontaneity, but the character of small film, conspicuous grain n' all.

removed account4 · Nov 21, 2016

why shoot film ?

http://emulsive.org/interviews
there are 100+ reasons people
shoot film ...

there are as many reasons to shoot film as there are people using film
and not many of them are the same...

Bill Burk · Nov 21, 2016

This has been a fun thread with good stories

I had the devil of a time with a digital camera couple weekends ago. For the photography merit badge, scouts have to learn about f/stops and shutter speeds and the effects they have on pictures. This scout's camera didn't have a dedicated up-down shifter, so in order to change an f/stop (choice of two Waterhouse-type stops) or shutter speed, the camera had to be put into a "mode" that was ready to accept up-down input from the multipurpose arrow-keys. Changing ISO was done the same way.

We finally figured it out and he got his shots... Oh right, he'd filled his memory card so we deleted half a dozen bad shots and set the camera to smallest JPG mode so he could take about 30 more shots on the last day.

When he finished the requirements, I was glad to get the Star-D tripod back so I could take some pictures with the Kodak 35 on Panatomic-X at f/16 and 20 seconds...

Sirius Glass · Nov 21, 2016

Digital imaging allows one to shoot lifeless black & white images and plastic looking color and black & white images. What more could you want?

LAG · Nov 22, 2016

Darko Pozar said:
Consider a Seitz Panorama Camera with it's 6x17 sensor...

Dead Link Removed

Well, nice try Darko Pozar!, but you should take into consideration as well that, without going into specifics technicals or design architecture limitations (is a long story) as well as the for that (plane-scanner) camera, I've mentioned in my post "size & quality", and this digital machine does not reach both.

LAG · Nov 22, 2016

tomfrh said:
In terms of raw detail consumer digital has surpassed 35mm film and is matching medium format. A fine grained 35mm negative/transparancy is equivalent to somewhere between 10 and 20 megapixels.

Although it can be "partially" true that the digital equivalence for "0,94 x 1,42 in" is close to 16,774,290 pixels (+/- for a specific outcome dpi size ... ...), this is highly questionable, because that final quality depends on many, many factors, starting with the size and quality itself of the photodiodes and how light is treated.

Where there are no discusion at all is with medium format, digital is far, far away from film

Marcelo Paniagua said:
...I love my Canon 6d and it sure is a pleasure to use. But I get a different kind of accoplishment feeling with film, because there is no chip or computer aiding me, its just me, my camera (most of the time a manual full mechanical one) and the film. Its either I get the shot right or I screw up. I'm not saying one is better than the other, they are just different. You find different kind of pleasure on both of them.

Just my 2 cents.

Regards.

Exactly! it is the "feeling", because it is the human factor which makes the real difference. But it's not only about the feeling you get when dealing with one or another, it's about the good feeling of being able to choose yourself one or another, and at the same time it's the same good feeling you must have to yourself to accept with that pleasure a different decision from the one you wanted, allowing the rest to live with an different option from yours.

In the end, Photography (and everyone who loves it) will benefit from that scenario!

tomfrh · Nov 22, 2016

LAG said:
Where there are no discusion at all is with medium format, digital is far, far away from film

35mm digital exceeds 35mm film, ie 35mm digital is now in the realm of medium format film.

It's pretty silly to say something like canon 5drs can't come close to medium format quality.

Don't get me wrong, I love film. I'm just not convinced by the mythical stories.

Why shoot film

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency